政治经济背景下的合法性危机与ISDS改革

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
{"title":"政治经济背景下的合法性危机与ISDS改革","authors":"","doi":"10.14330/jeail.2022.15.1.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The variation of countries ’ industrial policies and political strategies in a multipolar world brings the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime to a crossroad. Backlash to the inconsistency, non-transparency, partiality and unfairness of the ISDS regime results from the states ’ changing interests and policy priorities, including the rising awareness of democracy. In pursuing the benefits of multilateralism, a multilateral investment court can serve as an alternative to the current investment arbitration regime. States need to clarify the scope of consent based on their political economic considerations. Substantial investment protection standards can be different, whereas the principle of proportionality can serve as an approach to the balance between investment protection and states ’ policy arrangements. Meanwhile, there should be efforts to align the interpretation and application of key provisions, possibly through interpretation notes and an appellate body that reviews arbitral decisions, to generalise implicit consensus and to broaden collective acceptance of the regime.","PeriodicalId":42314,"journal":{"name":"Journal of East Asia and International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legitimacy Crisis and the ISDS Reform in a Political Economy Context\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.14330/jeail.2022.15.1.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The variation of countries ’ industrial policies and political strategies in a multipolar world brings the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime to a crossroad. Backlash to the inconsistency, non-transparency, partiality and unfairness of the ISDS regime results from the states ’ changing interests and policy priorities, including the rising awareness of democracy. In pursuing the benefits of multilateralism, a multilateral investment court can serve as an alternative to the current investment arbitration regime. States need to clarify the scope of consent based on their political economic considerations. Substantial investment protection standards can be different, whereas the principle of proportionality can serve as an approach to the balance between investment protection and states ’ policy arrangements. Meanwhile, there should be efforts to align the interpretation and application of key provisions, possibly through interpretation notes and an appellate body that reviews arbitral decisions, to generalise implicit consensus and to broaden collective acceptance of the regime.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42314,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of East Asia and International Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of East Asia and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2022.15.1.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of East Asia and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2022.15.1.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legitimacy Crisis and the ISDS Reform in a Political Economy Context
The variation of countries ’ industrial policies and political strategies in a multipolar world brings the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime to a crossroad. Backlash to the inconsistency, non-transparency, partiality and unfairness of the ISDS regime results from the states ’ changing interests and policy priorities, including the rising awareness of democracy. In pursuing the benefits of multilateralism, a multilateral investment court can serve as an alternative to the current investment arbitration regime. States need to clarify the scope of consent based on their political economic considerations. Substantial investment protection standards can be different, whereas the principle of proportionality can serve as an approach to the balance between investment protection and states ’ policy arrangements. Meanwhile, there should be efforts to align the interpretation and application of key provisions, possibly through interpretation notes and an appellate body that reviews arbitral decisions, to generalise implicit consensus and to broaden collective acceptance of the regime.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信